from the indeed dept

We've argued a few times that Steve Jobs' real success wasn't in inventing anything particularly new, but in taking what others had done and making it better. That's why we found his complaints about Android seem so odd. Now, as a ton of you have submitted, Malcolm Gladwell has penned a piece on Steve Jobs' "real genius," which he describes (eloquently, as always) as a "tweaker" more than inventor. Elsewhere, he's described as an "editor," rather than inventor.

Jobs’s sensibility was editorial, not inventive. His gift lay in taking what was in front of him—the tablet with stylus—and ruthlessly refining it. After looking at the first commercials for the iPad, he tracked down the copywriter, James Vincent, and told him, “Your commercials suck.”

“Well, what do you want?” Vincent shot back. “You’ve not been able to tell me what you want.”

Vincent argued back and suddenly Jobs went ballistic. “He just started screaming at me,” Vincent recalled. Vincent could be volatile himself, and the volleys escalated.

When Vincent shouted, “You’ve got to tell me what you want,” Jobs shot back, “You’ve got to show me some stuff, and I’ll know it when I see it.”

I’ll know it when I see it. That was Jobs’s credo, and until he saw it his perfectionism kept him on edge. He looked at the title bars—the headers that run across the top of windows and documents—that his team of software developers had designed for the original Macintosh and decided he didn’t like them. He forced the developers to do another version, and then another, about twenty iterations in all, insisting on one tiny tweak after another, and when the developers protested that they had better things to do he shouted, “Can you imagine looking at that every day? It’s not just a little thing. It’s something we have to do right.”

This is a key point that we've been arguing about for years. There's tremendous value in what Jobs did: innovating not actually by inventing, but by tweaking and "editing" the ideas and designs of others to make them "perfect." That act of taking what others have done and making it more valuable is such an underrated skill -- and yet it's really the key ingredient to innovation.

If you look back, historically, it's what Thomas Edison really did as well. He didn't actually invent very much himself. But he took others' ideas and made them better -- often recognizing how valuable the ideas were much more than those who originally came up with them. That's a form of editing and a form of remixing to make things better -- and Edison and Jobs were both amazingly skillful at it. So skillful, that many people falsely credit them with "inventing" things they really just remixed.

The lesson to be learned is that Edison and Jobs were pirating freetards who stole money from the hard-working inventors. Clearly there needs to be laws prohibiting this type of intellectual property theft. Can you imagine what will continue? People will keep making a small tweak and calling it a new invention! For example, all of these so-called "modern" airplanes are really just rip-offs of the Wright Brothers' original design and they should be required to license the design with their descendants, because those companies are just coasting off the Wrights' hard work.

Re:

For example, all of these so-called "modern" airplanes are really just rip-offs of the Wright Brothers' original design and they should be required to license the design with their descendants, because those companies are just coasting off the Wrights' hard work.

Exactly, the idea that it takes wings to fly can only belong to one, or in this case two men. Oh, and birds. They kind of had the lock on winged flight for a long time. Maybe we should think of the birds?

But ideas are owned

I wonder if this kind of thing can even get off the ground in today's permission society. Since we seem to think ideas can be owned and only the owner has sole right to act on the idea, we are handing individuals or corporations great power to determine what can and can't be done. Do we as a society really thing the needs of one out weight the needs of many?

Today, the balance of power between IP holders (copyright & patents) is far to weighted to the inventor. In fact, I would say there really is no balance. Its as if a 100 lb weakling is standing on the opposite side of the scales form the 800 lb gorilla. To say there is any kind of balance is a joke.

Really, if Apple's products were Better, don't you think they could have gotten more than 8% of the PC market?

Better implies an absolute: all other parts equal, a 3 gigahertz processor is BETTER than a 2 gigahertz processor. Apples products did no such thing. They appealed more to a subset of the population who wanted an easy way to accomplish tasks via computing devices, and did not mind paying a premium and losing some flexibility.

Re:

This kind of thing simply doesn't exists. You can't have "all other parts equal", there's always trade off somewhere.
Sometimes it's power consumption, sometime it durability or just cost.
Not everyone want best, some people prefer cheap.

Re: Re:

This kind of thing simply doesn't exists. You can't have "all other parts equal", there's always trade off somewhere.

That was kind of his point, wasn't it? Apple products aren't "better" than the competition, they're just different. For example, I was shopping for a large screen laptop. I got a Windows 17" laptop for about $650. I could have had a 17" Mac for something like $2000. Was the Mac better? Not for me, I got what I needed and saved $1300.

After you upgrade your machine to matching specifications, please let me know how much your "bargain" system cost you. And then consider the added value of an all aluminum case, a magnetically connected power connector that doesn't damage the case just because you trip over the cord, the minimal impact of viruses on the platform, etc...

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why would I do that? My requirements were 1. new 2. laptop 3. 17" screen. The $700 computer met all those requirements just as well as the $2000 one.

And then consider the added value of an all aluminum case,

Don't care...

a magnetically connected power connector that doesn't damage the case just because you trip over the cord,

Never tripped over the cord...

the minimal impact of viruses on the platform,

Can't get lower than zero (I never got any viruses)...

etc...

If you want to buy Apple because it's a better match for you, go right ahead, I won't criticize you. I chose to save a boatload of money by forgoing all that Apple stuff, and it worked out fine for me.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

In case you're wondering though, the Apple (Macbook Pro I think it was called) came with a way more powerful processor, probably more and faster memory, probably more storage. And likely a much better video card. I think the Windows machine had 3 USB ports and 1 firewire, and wifi and bluetooth. I don't buy software from computer vendors, so no it didn't come with any extras. I got what I need from elsewhere, generally open source.

Re:

Ah, but he targeted a subset that had a higher disposable income bracket. Apple products are usually more expensive than equivolent hardware and software from competators, and they have a higher profit margin. Apple intentionally doesn't want to sell to everyone, else they would have more products designed for lower price points.

Re:

While I definitely agree that Apple has a cult following and their products use the same basic components as any other PC (I'm not lumping in iOS devices into this), even I have to admit that they did a good job putting everything together in a seamless package. I spend a lot of time on my family's computers taking the crapware that gets bundled by the manufacturer, Apple does not tend to do this.

Clock speed is not everything, and by extension bigger is not always better. My quad core processor running at 2.8 GHz will far outperform my older single core clocked at 3.2 GHz. My server's Xeon processors are only clocked at 1.8 GHz but because of the architecture are far more capable than my quad core.

As I'm fond of saying, use the right tool for the job. For gaming and general computing, use a Windows PC. For servers, either Linux or BSD, for niche needs and nerdy street cred, use Linux, if you're idea of turning on the computer is smacking your forehead into the "on" button and you lack any sort of problem solving ability, by all means use a Mac.

Re:

"Really, if Apple's products were Better, don't you think they could have gotten more than 8% of the PC market?"

Currently 12.5% US, and rising.

But back in the day, they weren't THAT much better, and Sculley insisted that Apple matain their premium prices. Microsoft shipped Windows, and to penny-pinching corporations, one machine with windows and a mouse looked pretty much like another machine with windows and a mouse. And since one was significantly cheaper...

Then people started using computers at home, and they got what they already knew and used at work.

"They appealed more to a subset of the population who wanted..."

Who wanted to actually get things done, instead of fighting with the machine.

Re: Re:

OK, I'll take the bait.
Microsoft also had the ability to run tons of software, from nearly all versions of it's software. DOS programs run on Windows 7 machines! Does an OS7 program run on OSX? Any of them?
Microsoft has Visual Studio, allowing anyone to write software. Especially now with the Express Editions. And let's not even bring up Linux, with all development tools and libraries free for the taking...
What was Apple's development studio called again?
BTW, Wikipedia say's 8.15% share, I dunno where you got your data.
I also see that you are dedicated to Apple development on your profile. I think it would be safe to say you are not a neutral commenter. Neither am I, as I only code for Windows and Linux systems.

What Edison did best.....

....was to rip off other peoples ideas, such as Tesla's, dumb them down, then make absolutely sure nobody could to the same to him. He didn't invent the phonograph, motion pictures, the electric light bulb and if he had his way, the world would be wired for direct current. Also, movies would still be made in New York and you would need a license to use a camera. Frankly, I suspect Jobs was a lot like Edison, leaching from others but doing his best to prevent anybody else from achieving anything at all. All the same, it seems the world needs people like this from time to time. Too bad it has to be like that.

Re: What Edison did best.....

People keep saying Jobs was the one who made all these new products. Like he was the one who took a new idea and made it real instead of being the guy who just said "okay".

Do we even have the names of the design engineers who made the iPhone 4? Or the iPad? Or the iPod? Or do we just attribute this to Jobs because he was the one on stage holding it during a press conference?

Pretty much all CEOs do this, Edison was the definition of a modern-day CEO. Riding atop the shoulders of the true nameless geniuses who were below him.

Re:

It is called having high standards. I prefer to work with people that push me out of my comfort zone and challenge me to do my job better. This is how we learn and grow as individuals. I feel sorry for you if you cannot take a little pressure or choose not to improve yourself.

The ulimate VAR

Jobs was the ultimate Value Added Reseller. He tinkered with things until they worked in such a way that they would command a higher price to make them lucratively profitable. He did it well.

I'm not a Jobs fan or even an Apple fanboi (I don't own a single Apple product), but I do like to give credit where credit it is due. Jobs has earned a tip of the cap from me for helping advance modern consumer electronics.

Re: Shouting at people to "produce" is your notion of innovation?

out_of_the_blue = apple hater

Almost all of their products are as good as or better than their competitors. Asthetics, user experience, features and ease of use are what brings customers into Apple stores. While you are stomping your feet about how bad Apple products are every electronics manufacture in the world is trying to duplicate their success.

Uhh, really WOW..

Steve Jobs did not invent anything nor was he the innovater. He took credit for others work. He was a great business man who stepped on and took advantage of the real innovaters/inventors to get where he was. With Techdirt being a "news" agency would lead one to believe that the creditablity of the stories would actually be fact checked.

Did their utmost

It's interesting that you characterize Jobs and Edison in this light, considering that both of them did their utmost to prevent anyone else from doing (with their respective works) what they did with what came before them. Both did so through being overly litigious and patent-happy.

Steve Jobs is not really dead

I heard Steve Jobs isn't really dead, someone saw him in Oakland playing guitar and singing a Bob Dylan set. Apparently, he invented a new version of 'Blowing in the wind' and its much better and more user friendly. Copyrights and patents are pending 'iBlow iWin'

He's also working on a new version of Einstein's theory of relativity. Much better, smoother and appealing to the ear, and here's the kicker, it looks much better on paper than the original formula, he's using a fully copyrighted font called 'Apple Retentive Helvetica' Patents on the new theory are pending.

There ain't no Inventors

Re:
"That's a form of editing and a form of remixing to make things better -- and Edison and Jobs were both amazingly skillful at it. So skillful, that many people falsely credit them with "inventing" things they really just remixed."

As I have posted elsewhere:

These observations are both very true and very important to our proper understanding of this World.
What is almost always overlooked, however, because of our naturally anthropocentric standpoint is the logical consequence of such observations. Namely that, except in a very limited sense, we do not "create" or "design" things but rather that and technology EVOLVE within the medium of our collective imagination.
As Carl Sagan put it "To make an apple pie from scratch you first have to create the universe"
Without Jobs we would still have functionally comparable user interfaces, pointing devices and so forth. Just as without Newton or Liebnitz we would still have the calculus of variations, or relativity without Einstein, without Stephenson, the steam engine, without Edison, the phonograph I am not disparaging any of these individuals but it must be admitted they were mostly picking the low-hanging fruit.
This is a major theme of my latest book : "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website)